The lazy rule of thirds

[Valerio Tarone]

Did anyone read htpp:/thelazyruleofthirds by Jake garn?
what do you think about? Did anyone experienced it in lanscape, macro, ecc. ?

[Desmond Chan]

Did anyone read htpp:/thelazyruleofthirds by Jake garn?
what do you think about? Did anyone experienced it in lanscape, macro, ecc. ?

It's just another "rule". I doubt anyone would follow it (or the rules of third) strictly if not all the time. As stated in the article, it's nothing just "discovered" yesterday. By the way, when talking about the golden ratio, it's more than just where to put your center of attention in the frame. There're also lines that you should know about :S3:

[Chris Ober]

The link - http://www.jakegarn.com/the-rule-of-thirds/

[Roger Clark]

And after reading the above link, for a completely different view, see:

The Myth That Will Not Go Away
http://www.maa.org/devlin/devlin_05_07.html

(and I thought the myth that would not go away was crop factor--well here is another one.)

Roger

[Chris Ober]

Crop factor and more megapixels = better :)

[Roger Clark]

Crop factor and more megapixels = better :)

Example, take crop factor to the extreme: small sensor = small P&S image quality

Big sensor, more megapixels (but not too many) = better. Better images, and you get more exercise carrying all that weight!:w3

Roger

[Blake Shadle]

I don't know, but it seems like that guy's swirly thing always ends up at an intersection of thirds... kind of looks like a swirly version of the rule of thirds. I've always learned (and taught) that the points of highest impact in a photograph are at intersecting thirds. As far as I can tell, the swirlies only confirm that.

[Kerry Perkins]

For a completely different point of view, which I share, check this out - http://www.diagonalmethod.info/

IMO, the so-called rule of thirds is seriously over-achieving with the status of "rule". It should be more like "serving suggestion" than a rule, but I digress.... Many images do not contain major elements that fit into the tic-tac-toe line crossings and trying to shoehorn the elements into a rule doesn't always help the composition. The good folks at Adobe give us a whole collection of overlay grids to help us with composition in Lightroom - thirds, diagonal, triangle, golden spiral, and golden thirds. Don't know why they don't give us any in Photoshop. :c3:

[Arthur Morris]

Interesting reading but:

1-You would think that the guy would actually understand the rule of thirds. His diagram indicates that he does not.

2-The spiral comes very close to the rule of thirds "power points."

3-It's placement on the images is arbitrary to some degree.

4-He never explains the mathematical basis for the spiral that he has chosen. One could draw lots of similar spirals.

5-Nobody with any brains ever suggests that the rule of thirds is anything more than a guideline, and nobody goes around with a protractor. Close is good enough.... And more in the corner than suggested often works quite well and get us closer to the Golden Mean spiral.

[Bob Decker]

I don't know, but it seems like that guy's swirly thing always ends up at an intersection of thirds... kind of looks like a swirly version of the rule of thirds. I've always learned (and taught) that the points of highest impact in a photograph are at intersecting thirds. As far as I can tell, the swirlies only confirm that.

You seriously don't know what "that guy's swirly thing" is? SERIOUSLY? Google the "golden mean," read Michael Freeman's "The Photographer's Eye: Composition and Design for Better Digital Photography." (Or just admit that you're pulling our leg).

[Arthur Morris]

Though I am not Blake Shadle I have been doing photography for 28 years and had never heard of the Golden anything until I saw it mentioned in a BPN thread last week..... And I can say in advance that I am not pulling your leg. I guess that not knowing the Golden rules has seriously impaired my career. God, if only I had known.

[Bob Decker]

I am truely surprised, Artie. It is a part of classical art training and mentioned in most texts that examine composition. "Thirds" and the "Golden Section" are similar with thrids being easier to visualize for most people. The golden section is also known as the golden ratio, the golden mean, the divine section and by other terms as well. It can be mathmatically expressed and has been explored by intellectuals for at least 2400 years.

As far as effecting your career, some folks have a natural eye for composition, some don't. Obviously you're a natural. The so called compositional "rules" are there more as a means to explain what tends to work to those that don't.

[Arthur Morris]

Bob, Surprised is fine :) I have zero classical art training. Heck, my total photographic education consists of one course in nature photography: eight two hour sessions on Tuesday evenings in early 1984. Taught by my friend and only photography teacher Milton Heiberg.

I was not born with a natural eye for composition; when I started, I put every bird dead center until I ran into Milton :). I guess that I was able to develop whatever natural talent for composition that I had. I am sure that many of my most powerful images would fit with the Golden Spiral thingie but that was done seat of the pants--what looks right and balanced and pleasing to me. You do not always need to learn the rules to follow them :)

Same thing goes for Roger's scientific approach to light. I need to post something similar to that thread soon.

[Chris Ober]

Personally, I'm more inclined to agree with the well educated, experienced and published researcher, scientist, and mathematician http://www.stanford.edu/~kdevlin/ (http://www.stanford.edu/%7Ekdevlin/) that wrote the article Roger shared

Numerous tests have failed to show up any one rectangle that most observers prefer, and preferences are easily influenced by other factors. As to the Parthenon, all it takes is more than a cursory glance at all the photos on the Web that purport to show the golden ratio in the structure, to see that they do nothing of the kind. (Look carefully at where and how the superimposed rectangle - usually red or yellow - is drawn and ask yourself: why put it exactly there and why make the lines so thick?) http://www.maa.org/devlin/devlin_05_07.html

than an unknown amateur photographer (serious as he may be), restaurateur http://www.jakegarn.com/contact/about/ whos entire, extensive research (reading a single book), came to the premature conclusion that the ratio is some kind compositional breakthrough because he managed to find a few photos that seemed to fit it.

His lazy rule of thirds is better defined as lazy research. At least his subtitle 'The Tremendously Lazy' is accurate :bg3:

[Bob Decker]

Artie, I'm not necessarily a "believer" in knowledge of compositional rules being needed, but I find the subject interesting. If one studies them a bit they quickly realize there's a "rule" to fit almost any composition. Kind of punches a hole in the idea that they're important. :w3 I do think a rudimentary familarization with them can help the photographer understand how to incorporate certain "feelings" or "emotions" in a photograph. Subject/element placement can affect the sense of drama, movement, dynamics, etc. within an image. But again for some people it's all very intuitive anyway. Others learn through practice, observation and experimentation even without being aware of the "rules."

FWIW, I took a class on underwater photography once, attended a few workshops on location lighting for portraiture and I recall one workshop that had a bit of emphasis on composition. Mostly I'm a book worm and avid forum reader.

[Daniel Cadieux]

I am sure that many of my most powerful images would fit with the Golden Spiral thingie but that was done seat of the pants--what looks right and balanced and pleasing to me. You do not always need to learn the rules to follow them :)


I'm surprised I hadn't seen this thread before...

I'm pretty much with Artie. I've only ever composed my images with what "felt" right to me, without even knowing what that particular composition was called (or even knowing there was a name for it!). The "Golden Section" is new to me from this thread, and even the term "Rule of Thirds" is pretty recent for me...although I've been composing many images these ways for a long time (I used to draw before photography and applied the same then):S3:.

Interesting reads, but for me analyzing stuff in such detail is way above my head...not saying it is wrong or bad, just saying I don't put too much time or thought into it...I just go with my "gut".

[John Chardine]

You guys are a tough crowd! Why not cut the guy some slack and chill out a bit! His article does not dwell on Greek architecture or de Vinci but goes to the natural source of the ratio so I don't see much conflict with this and the science essay Roger points to. As far as I can see he is drawing the standard Fibonacci spiral, not some made up one, and he does mention Fibonacci so the mathematical basis is implied (and anyway I would not expect a fashion photographer to actually publish the number series).

[Bill Jobes]

It's fascinating how when we meet at the intersection of Science and Art, a collision often occurs.

Looking at 'art' in ancient times and seeing a pattern, someone long ago decreed to apply scientific measurement to quantify and 'prove' that the warm, fuzzy feeling such images produced in that 'individual' were to be validated for everyone.

Thus, compositional 'rules' were imposed on students of the arts, and we were all eventually conditioned to accept these norms. Everything suddenly seemed balanced, when it was in fact 'unbalanced.'

Before I leave this intersection of Science and Art, I've concluded, and hereby decree that the most appealing format for artistic photographic expression is now Circular.

After all, since the glass in our lenses is circular, so too should be our photo art. There's no longer a need to distort it into hard-angled forms.

I call this new regime The Rule of Rounds. :bg3:

[Arthur Morris]

Bob, I agree on all counts. With Dan too :) And Chris. I once refused to join photo clubs on Long Island because they had rules for art. Now I spend my life teaching folks my 78 (that number ficticious BTW) Art's Rules for Art. The rules of course are only guidelines but it is amazing how many of them are quite true, powerful, and important :)

[Arthur Morris]

You guys are a tough crowd! Why not cut the guy some slack and chill out a bit! His article does not dwell on Greek architecture or de Vinci but goes to the natural source of the ratio so I don't see much conflict with this and the science essay Roger points to. As far as I can see he is drawing the standard Fibonacci spiral, not some made up one, and he does mention Fibonacci so the mathematical basis is implied (and anyway I would not expect a fashion photographer to actually publish the number series).

John, I have not problem with the original poster or with Fibonacci :)

[Arthur Morris]

It's fascinating how when we meet at the intersection of Science and Art, a collision often occurs.

Looking at 'art' in ancient times and seeing a pattern, someone long ago decreed to apply scientific measurement to quantify and 'prove' that the warm, fuzzy feeling such images produced in that 'individual' were to be validated for everyone.

Thus, compositional 'rules' were imposed on students of the arts, and we were all eventually conditioned to accept these norms. Everything suddenly seemed balanced, when it was in fact 'unbalanced.'

Before I leave this intersection of Science and Art, I've concluded, and hereby decree that the most appealing format for artistic photographic expression is now Circular.

After all, since the glass in our lenses is circular, so too should be our photo art. There's no longer a need to distort it into hard-angled forms.

I call this new regime The Rule of Rounds. :bg3:

Good point. And let's not forget that our lenses are round too!

[William Malacarne]

and we all have rectangular sensors.....:bg3:

Bill

[John Chardine]

John, I have not problem with the original poster or with Fibonacci :)

Sorry for the unintended confusion, I didn't mean cut the OP some slack, I meant the guy who wrote the article referred to in the OP.

[Roger Clark]

It's fascinating how when we meet at the intersection of Science and Art, a collision often occurs.

Looking at 'art' in ancient times and seeing a pattern, someone long ago decreed to apply scientific measurement to quantify and 'prove' that the warm, fuzzy feeling such images produced in that 'individual' were to be validated for everyone.

Thus, compositional 'rules' were imposed on students of the arts, and we were all eventually conditioned to accept these norms. Everything suddenly seemed balanced, when it was in fact 'unbalanced.'

Before I leave this intersection of Science and Art, I've concluded, and hereby decree that the most appealing format for artistic photographic expression is now Circular.

After all, since the glass in our lenses is circular, so too should be our photo art. There's no longer a need to distort it into hard-angled forms.

I call this new regime The Rule of Rounds. :bg3:

Bill,
Good one for April fools.

I'll add a new take. The lenses are round and produce a round image circle, that photographers try and stuff into a rectangular hole (the sensor). Clearly that does not fit. So sensors should be round, and our computers monitors should be round. This would make better karma with our environment. Our eyes are round, our pupils are round, the sun is round, the earth and moon are round. Round is obviously the key. We just need to stop being so square.:5

Roger

[Steve Uffman]

ah yes, what goes around, comes around....nuf said!

[DickLudwig]

Bill,
Good one for April fools.

I'll add a new take. The lenses are round and produce a round image circle, that photographers try and stuff into a rectangular hole (the sensor). Clearly that does not fit. So sensors should be round, and our computers monitors should be round. This would make better karma with our environment. Our eyes are round, our pupils are round, the sun is round, the earth and moon are round. Round is obviously the key. We just need to stop being so square.:5

Roger
True ours are round but the important thing to consider when you say that is that we have two eyes, side by side which makes our field of vision rectangular in nature not circular.

Dick

[Roger Clark]

True ours are round but the important thing to consider when you say that is that we have two eyes, side by side which makes our field of vision rectangular in nature not circular.

Dick

Well, not really rectangular, but oval.

[Eric Weaver]

Shouldn't the lenses be made rectangular to match the sensors instead? :w3